On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:41:00 -0500, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

I wrote:
>> Eating low dense, high volume, high fiber, high vitamin, high mineral --
>> well I think that's real paleo.
>>

Ray:
>That's real concentration camp.  The figures you quote were gathered by the
>scientists of a famous vegetarian from slave labor camps in order to figure
>out how to keep such people alive and productive as cheaply as possible.

I don't quote here anything. Except maybe Eades and many paleolithic
researchers who assure a very high fiber content in the food in
paleolithic
and hominid times. High volumes of low density food aren't
particularly
cheap. Good quality vegetables and fruit in high quantity have their
price.
Paleo-people could eat fresh and living what now has to be carried by
within
a few hours to remain fresh.

You mention the intention to "keep such people alive and productive as
cheaply as possible". This is quite a challenge: to find a diet, which
is
cheap (also environmentally) and covers all. My hint is the roman
empire
nutrition: 600g of cereals per day, a few carrots, a few berries.
Compute
what it costs and it will be hard to find what it lacks.
(I'll post my "roman" composition under "a cheap diet that covers
all")

>These vitamin requirements assume a high load of vitamin and mineral
>robbing lectins present when you have a diet consisting of only grains,
>legumes or potatoes.  Real paleo people require far less.

As far as I read various scientific sources, paleo people had *much*
more of
vitamins, minerals and fiber.
The RDA vitamin requirements are considered much to low by many.
They are collected in various methods. Usually only in amounts that
just
prevent outbreak of diseases plus a (small) safety factor.

I did *not* mention grains, legumes or potatoes. These are *high*
density
staples, storable and easily produced.
They have their antinutrients , which require processing, like
soaking,
fermenting or cooking.
And this worked, as 400 generations of *your* anchestors have prooven.

Do you care to mention how lectins would rob vitamins? Antinutrients
usually
hinder digestion of protein, starch and assimilation of minerals, but
not
vitamins. I can't see a reason to

You condemn potatoes in your food lists too. I understand that this is
helpful in a anti-diabetic nutrition, when you aim to switch from
carbohydrate food to a fat based energy supply. The potatoe toxin
solanin
(like the whole family of Solanaceae) is not hindering digestion and
effectfull only in rather big quantities.
On the other hand, roots and tubers very likely as a true paleolithic
staple
as they provide a reliable and practical supply. Like nothing else
does, i
am aware of.

>Stefansson, in his experiments for the U.S. military, found that not only
>could solders survive on commercial beef ( Armour) pemmican for long
>periods of time without vitamin or mineral deficiencies, but that it was
>the best cure for scurvy ( vit. C deficiency) available at that time.

I agree, that mixing usual meat with high volumes of pure fat (about
50/50)
approaches a nutrition profile which enables to survive for some time.
In
this way at last the soldier gets enough energy.
Good for soldiers' emergency. I prefer fresh food.
Anyone naked which a stick, sharp or not, would not have had access to
it.

regards

Amadeus Schmidt